The opinion of the court was delivered by: Claudia Wilken United States District Judge
DECLARATION AND EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER
I, Gregory J. Rockwell, Esq., as attorney of record for defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, hereby request that the Court continue the initial case management conference in the above action, currently set for December 21, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. to March 22, 2011, or to such later date that is available on the Court's calendar. The reasons for this request are set forth below.
In the past 30 days I have made several unsuccessful attempts to reach attorney Jeremy Cloyd of the Law Offices of Sanford M. Cipinko, attorneys for plaintiff herein, in order to discuss discovery issues which I anticipate will arise and may affect the progress of this action and the preparation of a joint case management conference. When I have called the law firm, I have reached a voicemail system, through which I was able to leave voice mail messages for Mr. Cloyd.
This morning I called again, and my call was answered by a receptionist, who informed me that Mr. Cloyd was no longer with the Cipinko law firm. When I explained that I needed to speak to the attorney who has taken over the handling of this lawsuit, I was advised that the representation 4 of the plaintiff was in the process of being transferred to another law firm and that there were no attorneys in the Cipinko law firm today who could speak to me. I was referred to Oakland attorney John E. Hill and was told that he would be substituting into the case for plaintiff.
I called Mr. Hill's office and was advised that he was in a mediation
and would not be in
the office today. I then spoke to a gentleman by the name of Jose
Duran, who identified himself as
Mr. Hill's paralegal. Mr. Duran advised me that Mr. Hill has met with
the plaintiff, but no 10 substitution of attorneys has been signed. He
also advised me that San Francisco attorney David
Helbraun might take over representation of the plaintiff in this
action. I advised Mr. Duran that, under the circumstances, I
intended to make an ex parte application to the Court to continue the
case management conference.
After speaking to Mr. Duran, I called attorney David Helbraun, who
advised me that he has
met with the plaintiff, but that he has not made a decision as to
whether he will agree to represent 16 the plaintiff in this action. I
advised Mr. Helbraun of my plan to request a continuance of the case
management conference and asked if he had any objection to a
continuance, and he said that he did 18 not, so long as I made it
clear to the Court that he has not yet agreed to represent the
plaintiff as yet.
This lawsuit arises from a physical altercation between the plaintiff
and deputy sheriffs
which occurred at the Santa Rita jail. The plaintiff has been
charged with a violation California
Penal Code § 148 as a result of that altercation. That criminal action
is presently pending and has not been set for trial. I have been
advised by the District Attorney's Office that the attorneys for 24
the plaintiff in the criminal action have recently filed a motion for
an order permitting discovery of the personnel records of the
deputies involved in the altercation. That motion is set to be heard
Based upon my experience in similar cases, I anticipate that I will
not be able to take the
deposition of the plaintiff in this action until after the criminal
case has been resolved.
January 18, 2011. No trial date will be set until after that motion has been heard and ruled upon.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Oakland, California on December 13, 2010.
Good Cause appearing therefore, the Case Management Conference set for December 21, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. in action 10-04062CW is hereby continued to March 22, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. The 10 parties shall file a joint case ...